Approaches to Late Victorian Poverty – a Re-Examination of the London Charity Organization" (2015)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
College of the Holy Cross CrossWorks Honors Theses Honors Projects 5-2015 Approaches to Late Victorian Poverty – A Re- Examination of the London Charity Organization Claire S. Mahoney '15 Follow this and additional works at: https://crossworks.holycross.edu/honors Recommended Citation Mahoney, Claire S. '15, "Approaches to Late Victorian Poverty – A Re-Examination of the London Charity Organization" (2015). Honors Theses. 6. https://crossworks.holycross.edu/honors/6 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Projects at CrossWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of CrossWorks. Mahoney 1 Approaches to Late Victorian Poverty – A Re-Examination of the London Charity Organization Claire S. Mahoney College of the Holy Cross Professor McBride / Professor Futterman Honors Program Senior Thesis Mahoney 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Chapter 1 Setting the Stage: Framing late Victorian philanthropy……………………………..…..10 Chapter 2 Morality and the COS: Understanding the philosophical roots of the COS……………..33 Chapter 3 The History of the COS………………………………………………………….………49 Chapter 4 Critique of the COS and Conclusions………………………………………….…...……74 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….89 Mahoney 3 INTRODUCTION During the late Victorian era (roughly 1870-1910), rapid change and the effects of previous developments, such as the Industrial Revolution culminated in an age of inquiry and questioning. The decades of 1860-1910 represent a reevaluation of the definition of poverty and its relationship with the middle and upper classes. Yet, the middle class was an inherently new entity, a unique product of its time. Unlike any previous social group, the middle class of this era had both the wealth and ability to engage with and actively address social and political issues. The new domain of an influential middle class enabled a unique intersection of both the interests of the upper classes and the desires of the working and lower classes.1 Political reform of the era coupled with modernization through industrialization resulted in tension between societal change and maintenance of past traditions and ways of life. This climate of uncertainty manifested itself in the creation of new words, new meanings, and new perspectives. As society attempted to reconcile itself with modernity, individuals attempted to reconcile themselves with their local community, most evident in the debate surrounding poverty and the responsibility of the middle class toward its alleviation. This thesis explores the construction of the London Charity Organization Society (COS). The COS was established in 1869 in order to help organize the numerous charities in existence throughout London. The COS was inherently a product of its time, created to address a very specific societal issue through a very explicit process and understanding of the aim of philanthropy. To understand goals of the society, it is crucial to look at the mentality of the late Victorian era, and more specifically the mentality of the middle class who composed the primary 1 Seymour Martin Lipset, "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy," The American Political Science Review, 53, no. 1 (1959): 69-105. Mahoney 4 members of the COS. In itself, the COS embodied the struggle of the era in the ascendancy of a new democratic polity with greater agency to effect change. The work of notable COS member and philosopher Bernard Bosanquet highlighted the COS conception of a social theory of democracy. According to Bosanquet, “…traditional elective democracies rely on crude controls which manifest the ‘will of all,’ an aggregate of individual interests.”2 However, reforms passed during the mid and late Victorian era promoted a larger civic body through increased enfranchisement and greater availability of social programs, such as education. As a result, according to Bosanquet, the transition occurred from a “crude” democracy, to a “mature” democracy, which, “…rel[ies] upon the ‘general will’ and the moral independence of individuals and groups. Democracies… ‘are beginning to feel the truth of this; that is, to recognize the value of independent and comparatively permanent organs of their will…’”3 The ascendancy of the mature democracy also mandated a specific form of citizenship, or responsibility on account of the members of society. The COS concept of citizenship placed the individual and concepts such as “…character, independence, self-management, and self- maintenance” at the core. From this perspective, poverty represented a failing of the duties of citizenship. The presence of poverty undermined the foundation of democracy and inhibited a large number of individuals from becoming active members of the civic body. To begin to explore the COS is to grapple with issues of defining poverty, understanding the ability of the people (middle class) to actively address poverty, the form of such philanthropy, the relationship of private action with the legislation of the state, the importance of localism, and the motivation for philanthropic action in the first place from a political, duty 2 A.W. Vincent, “The Poor Law Reports of 1909 and the Social Theory of the Charity Organization,” Victorian Studies, 27, no. 3 (1984): 349. 3 Ibid. Mahoney 5 centric perspective - returning to the notion of the construction of a mature democracy composed of participative members. A major aspect of this exploration is a re-evaluation of the COS, building upon previous conclusions made by historians and attempting to better analyze the COS through the perspective of its own time. A major roadblock to understanding the viewpoint of the COS is its usage of pejorative terms, such as “deserving” and “underserving” poor and individualistic claims of self- maintenance and self-management.4 However, rather than call the COS an individualist, self- serving organization premised upon the evaluation of the moral worth of the poor, I contend that the COS was “individualistic” in the sense that it placed the individual as of the ultimate importance. To care for the individual was to in turn act according to one’s civic duty as well as to care for the overall well-being of the democratic community. To achieve such care, the COS attempted to act according to a very explicitly defined form of philanthropy. The COS endeavored to alleviate poverty for the “deserving poor” defined as the result of scrupulous investigation, or rather those who had the means to work, but faced economic hardship beyond their control. Prominent COS member and wife to Bernard Bosanquet, Helen Bosanquet, explained this difference in terms of, “…those who are driven to seek public assistance by temporary misfortune and those who habitually rely upon it.”5 This perspective includes a moral component often misattributed and misunderstood. I intend to re-evaluate the COS not only in the context of its time, but also in relation to its social theory, or theoretical framework. Therefore, my argument is twofold: 1) The COS has been radically oversimplified and 2) through evaluation of the environment in which the COS existed, the society successfully 4 Vincent 353. 5 Ibid., 349. Mahoney 6 achieved its mission within the context of poverty alleviation and the development of effective private philanthropic action at the local level in correspondence with the current laws in place. To explore late Victorian philanthropy, poverty, its causes, and some of the Victorian era solutions, such as the establishment of the COS, the work of economic historian Michel E. Rose in The Relief of Poverty 1834-1914 and lecturer of economic history Doctor J.H. Treble’s Urban Poverty in Britain were assessed. American historian and Professor Emeritus at City University of New York Gertrude Himmelfarb, in both Poverty and Compassion: The Moral Imagination of the Late Victorians and The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values provided a basis for the inquiry into poverty of this era, with specific emphasis on the social approach to poverty. The way historians have depicted and approached the COS represented an important point of departure for a re-evaluation of the organization. Rose, in The Relief of Poverty 1834- 1914, (1972) compartmentalized the Victorian era’s unique increased social awareness of poverty and philanthropic attempts to address the issue through distinctions between a “moral” and economic perception of poverty. Rose used the 1834 New Poor Law as a critical starting point for differences and issues in the interpretation of poverty. Rose explained, The poor law proved to be ill adapted for dealing with poverty, and thus was increasingly ignored as a device for social reform. It is the aim of this study to follow this development, to see the extent to which the oversimplified early nineteenth century view of poverty was broken down by investigation of the causes of poverty, and by changing attitudes towards it, a process which led to the introduction of new methods of treating poverty.6 In his thesis, Rose argued that a refusal to accept economic reasons beyond the control of the individual as a source of poverty was a major fault of mid and late Victorian policy and attitude. 66 Michael E. Rose, Studies in Economic History: The Relief of Poverty 1834-1914, (London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1972), 12. Mahoney 7 As an economic historian, Rose disparaged the COS for its “moralistic” reading of